Re: Do Children Learn Languages at Different Rates?

In article <87vewt8e60.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Lee Sau Dan <danlee@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>>> "Herman" =3D=3D Herman Rubin <hrubin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:

> Herman> English is essentially SVO, or occasionally VSO. German
> Herman> also is of that type, in fact more often forcing the
> Herman> latter, but in English one knows which verb early, while
> Herman> if there is an auxiliary, in German only the auxiliary is
> Herman> known early.

>German is occasionally VSO? Could you give some examples?

If the sentence starts with an adverb, usually of time.

>I think otherwise: German is SOV or OSV, except in the main clause, in
>which case the verb (after detaching from its separable prefix, if
>present) is shifted to the second position.

>(You'll encounter OSV in subordinate clasues where the subject is not
>pronoun and the direct object is reflexive.)


> Herman> As I recall, in subordinate clauses, even the auxiliary
> Herman> comes at the end, so they are SOV.

>Yes. The verb comes last in subordinate clauses, as well as in
>adjectival clauses employing a verb. (e.g. Das _schon seit hundert
>Jahren gegruendete_ Unternehmen) So, only in the main clause is it not
>SOV/OSV. I'd call this latter situation an exception. :)


> >> Indeed, I find this German word order useful. The aux. verb
> >> and the main verb effectively brackets the things in between.
> >> So, once you've heard the main verb, you know the sentence is
> >> complete. That's an additional signal which English lacks.
> >> "He has found [tens or 100s of words]..." when do you know it
> >> stops?

> Herman> Punctuation.

>How does a punctuation sound like?

English uses commas for this purpose more than German,
and also semicolons. Also, it is less likely to have
such long sentences.

> Herman> Does English have more words with multiple meanings? This
> Herman> would be somewhat surprising, considering that English is
> Herman> considered to have more words.

>More words !=3D less overloading.

>Think about "mean". What does that mean? It can be an adjective or a
>verb. And "means" may be a noun or a verb.

>And what's "free"? Gratis? Or Unrestricted?

Originally it was not restricted. The "Gratis" meaning
is "free of charge" originally.

>What is a "bitch"?

The non-pejorative meaning is a female animal, including
dogs and some others. What is a "schweinhund"?

>What does "gay" mean?

Until recently, it meant only "merry".

I do not know German well enough to know other such changes
in meaning.

>And what does "take" mean, given so many "compounds" that it forms
>with other words, forming something that can be completely different.
>Does something "take place" to occupy a spatial volume? When
>something "takes time", where is the time taken to? When you "take
>part in" something, are you really taking a portion of it away?


> Herman> English has only the forms infinitive, present, past, and
> Herman> present and past participles.

>What's the past form of "must" and "ought to", please?
>And what's the past participle of "can", "will", "shall"?

These are no longer verbs in English.

> Herman> Other than the common verbs used also by themselves, the
> Herman> other auxiliaries are just that, and are not verbs, so
> Herman> they do not have past tenses, and thus the need to use the
> Herman> perfect.

>But "can", "will", "shall" all have past tenses: "could", "would",
>"should".

No, "could", "would", and "should" are essentially subjunctive
forms. They apply to the present tense as well. In English,
the distinction between "will" and "shall" is one of person
and prediction/determination. Similarly, "might" is a form
of "may", but not a past in English. These auxiliaries no
longer have tenses in English, and it is highly questionable
whether they should be considered verbs.

("Should" has acquired a different meaning, though.) "I
>can do it today." "I could do it earlier." What's the future form?
>Oh! It's clumsy: "I will be able to do it some time later". No
>simple future form for "can". You need to convert it to "be able to"
>and form the future tense from that expression. So irregular. So
>difficult.

You can also say, "I could do it today." or "I can do it next
week.", or "I can/could do it next week if it does not rain."

The form "can" is not used with the past as I see it, and
shall/will are only indicators of future. In English,
these are no longer verbs, but auxiliaries, which are
really adverbs.

--
This address is for information only. I do not claim that these views
are those of the Statistics Department or of Purdue University.
Herman Rubin, Department of Statistics, Purdue University
hrubin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Phone: (765)494-6054 FAX: (765)494-0558
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Tactics to bringing a language to life
    ... Herman> My parents would not use any language other than English ... I have a friend whose both parents speak Cantonese natively. ...
    (sci.lang)
  • Re: How the Deaf Learn to Read
    ... When learning to read English, ... Herman> Bell who invented a descriptive system of writing sounds, ... Herman> combinations still used for more flexible learning. ... like teaching colour-photography to blind people so that they could ...
    (sci.lang)
  • Re: Easy as ABG
    ... Herman> but I do know that in French, ... That's a "characteristic" of the Romance languages. ... (although English speaker would consider the construction "many words" ... Herman> I am not sure about German; ...
    (sci.lang)
  • Re: Do Children Learn Languages at Different Rates?
    ... > Herman> English is essentially SVO, or occasionally VSO. ... > Herman> if there is an auxiliary, in German only the auxiliary is ...
    (sci.lang)
  • Re: Do Children Learn Languages at Different Rates?
    ... Herman> English is essentially SVO, ... Herman> latter, but in English one knows which verb early, while ... Herman> if there is an auxiliary, in German only the auxiliary is ...
    (sci.lang)